"instrument kit" is a correct and usable phrase in written English.
You can use it to refer to a collection of tools, such as a tool set, necessary for doing a specific task. For example: "I bought an instrument kit for repairing electronics."
In particular, the literature review considered the following PICO: P (patients undergoing spinal surgical procedure), I (surgical disposable instrument kit), C (surgical reusable instrument kit), O (outcome related to the development of adverse events, economic data and clinical effectiveness).
The replacement of a reusable instrument kit for lumbar arthrodesis, with a disposable one, could improve the management of this kind of devices in hospital settings.
In this view, evidence was retrieved using both Pubmed and Cochrane Databases, including the following keywords: "HTA assessment", "surgical disposable devices", "surgical instrument kit".
The historical scenario, in which all the patients (N = 139) were treated using the standard reusable instrument kit, was compared with the innovative scenario, thus considering 119 procedures performed with the reusable instrument kit and 20 with the innovative disposable one.
Moreover, the reduced size of the disposable instrument kit could guarantee easier management inside the hospital, both in terms of internal transport and storage processes: the manufacturing company could ensure supply upon request, faster than the standard sterilisation process.
As reported in Table 2, the total cost estimated for the reusable instrument kit was €4,279.11, while for the disposable kit it was €4,242.66 (p-value =0.000).
The Carter Center, which favors a month of training, estimates the cost at $600 per worker, plus $800 for two surgical instrument kits for each of them.
While reusable and disposable instruments for laparoscopic interventions have been studied in literature, no specific information exists regarding instrument kits for lumbar arthrodesis.
However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, no studies have been focused on instrument kits in the specific setting of lumbar arthrodesis, with a complete multidimensional assessment approach.
The standard reusable technology is associated with a higher level of safety, even if the disposable instrument kits is advantageous for guaranteeing the safety of both healthcare professionals and patients.
The literature review revealed a lack of randomised controlled trials related to this topic, and also an absence of HTA reports and studies focusing on the comparison of the two instrument kits in the present study.
